- (1.)Though on earlier occasion IAs filed by the petitioner were rejected by this Court, but it is pointed out that the petitioner is facing great financial difficulties because of the order impugned by which her compassionate appointment has been cancelled. Therefore, the prayer is repeated for the purposes of hearing of this writ petition expeditiously.
(2.)The only issue raised in the writ petition is that the order of compassionate appointment was issued in respect of the petitioner on account of untimely death of her husband, who was in service in the government department. Since the petitioner was not eligible at the relevant time, the application of the petitioner was rejected. However, after obtaining the educational qualification the petitioner repeated the application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was considered by the respondents/State and on due consideration the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 17.6.2013. The petitioner joined the services and started working. However, only because in the application form the petitioner has referred that she belongs to general category whereas the petitioner was found to be a member of other backward classes community, a show cause notice was issued to her on 1.7.2013. A reply was submitted by the petitioner that she was not seeking any benefit of such reservation and by mistake the said fact was not mentioned in the application. It was found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that she belonged to other backward classes and treating the same as a misconduct the impugned order was issued dispensing with the services of the petitioner on 10.7.2013. Against this order, the writ petition is filed.
(3.)It is contended by learned Government Advocate that the fact has been enquired and since it was found that there were only two vacancies of general category, suppressing the fact that petitioner was a member of other backward classes, the application was submitted by her and she has been appointed against that vacancy of general category, therefore, action was rightly taken by the respondents to remove the petitioner from service.